HAL Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) and Light Observation Helicopter (LOH)

[Gessler]

No need fixing....

The twin engine is an added and welcome boost. Choppers have high risk of fatalities and single engine choppers when faced with engine issue are prone to it. ( Yes this reasoning will exist till time eternal )

Add coaxial rotor and smaller size providing better handling , range and payload Inc.

And I don't think army /airforce were going to put all eggs in one basket either. There have been lots of issues with Dhruv too. So 200 were to be imported whether Ka or any other.

Sorry but this is not how requirements are stipulated. You're making up things as you go.

You will find many advantages of Ka226 over LUH if you look, similarly you'll find many advantages of Mi-26 and Mi-28 over CH-47 and AH-64 respectively. But that does not justify purchase of both. Are those advantages actually required by the SQR? That's the real question.

Otherwise it becomes a classic case of "the tail wagging the dog".

Like I said, after 50+ years of single-engine high altitude operations on HAL-built Cheetah & Chetak, neither IAF nor AAC filed any ASQR/GSQR (air/ground staff qualitative requirements) that stipulate a dual-engine setup. Cuz they didn't see the single-engine setup as an issue that requires addressing.

Again like I said, if at all the dual-engine setup was necessary and/or extremely beneficial for the specific use-case (based on over half-century of experience), then it would have been stipulated in the RFI for 197 foreign helos - again, it wasn't.

That's how the Eurocopter Fennec was allowed to compete.

Now whatever advantages the 226 supposedly provides, are they actually worth buying, building & maintaining an entirely different product? Aren't we needlessly duplicating resources and heavily increasing cost & logistics burden? Training crews on different platforms when a single type would have been enough? IAF is already a Zoo of aircraft types, no need to increase further.

I think navy should divide the 111 no. Into 60 Ka226 T if it meets the requirement and rest ALH.

Again a needless division. I don't think you're even considering cost & logistics as a factor. There's a reason why Russian helos were defeated by Boeing types in the tenders even though they had lesser upfront cost.

If at all its deemed by IN that the co-axial rotor is the way to go (which it doesn't), then buy all 111 Ka-226Ts.

Why few of these, few of that?

Besides, IN hangars on most ships are designed to be able to accommodate a Sea King or a similar sized helo like even MH60R or NH90. Both the ALH and 226T are much smaller, either of them would make no difference - the size doesn't matter, hangars can handle both.

ALH frankly makes the most sense due to multitude of factors.

> Indigenous IPR
> Established production line
> Type already operated by IN
> Established high localization of spares & support (including engines).

 

[Flying Dagger]

Sorry but this is not how requirements are stipulated. You're making up things as you go.

You will find many advantages of Ka226 over LUH if you look, similarly you'll find many advantages of Mi-26 and Mi-28 over CH-47 and AH-64 respectively. But that does not justify purchase of both. Are those advantages actually required by the SQR? That's the real question.

Otherwise it becomes a classic case of "the tail wagging the dog".

Like I said, after 50+ years of single-engine high altitude operations on HAL-built Cheetah & Chetak, neither IAF nor AAC filed any ASQR/GSQR (air/ground staff qualitative requirements) that stipulate a dual-engine setup. Cuz they didn't see the single-engine setup as an issue that requires addressing.

Again like I said, if at all the dual-engine setup was necessary and/or extremely beneficial for the specific use-case (based on over half-century of experience), then it would have been stipulated in the RFI for 197 foreign helos - again, it wasn't.

That's how the Eurocopter Fennec was allowed to compete.

Now whatever advantages the 226 supposedly provides, are they actually worth buying, building & maintaining an entirely different product? Aren't we needlessly duplicating resources and heavily increasing cost & logistics burden? Training crews on different platforms when a single type would have been enough? IAF is already a Zoo of aircraft types, no need to increase further.



Again a needless division. I don't think you're even considering cost & logistics as a factor. There's a reason why Russian helos were defeated by Boeing types in the tenders even though they had lesser upfront cost.

If at all its deemed by IN that the co-axial rotor is the way to go (which it doesn't), then buy all 111 Ka-226Ts.

Why few of these, few of that?

Besides, IN hangars on most ships are designed to be able to accommodate a Sea King or a similar sized helo like even MH60R or NH90. Both the ALH and 226T are much smaller, either of them would make no difference - the size doesn't matter, hangars can handle both.

ALH frankly makes the most sense due to multitude of factors.

> Indigenous IPR
> Established production line
> Type already operated by IN
> Established high localization of spares & support (including engines).

And as said repeatedly again... Twin engine is an advantage that cant be denied however one may try to twist it. Many cheetal/chetak have crashed but cost of operation and acquisition took priority over more safety.

Everyone knows that senior officials are advised to travel in twin engine helis infact we have laid down rule that no two high ranking officials are supposed to travel in single engine chopper together.

But then again why it should be applied for lower ranking officials ? That's what you are saying.... In the mountainous terrain IA will be operating twin engine is always welcomed.

And more important better handling which you aren't getting with a conventional LUH.

For 200 of those choppers being built in house there won't be multiplicity of spare or training issue either.

-------

It's not for most ships but for all .... where NUH will be operating.

For Navy size/space is an issue big one... (not weight) .


Weight becomes an issue in terms of operational cost where Ka 226 T makes sense with IA also opting for 200 of those.

And since Navy already operate ALH ( not satisfied with it ) it is already there... But with Ka 226 T they will be able to do their normal operation while ALH can be modified for ASW role better.


Rest Why Russians choppers weren't chosen was due to the electronic warfare and stuff. But here cost is an important factor and for asw we are going to take lead with indigenous tech as much as possible.

 

[Gessler]

And as said repeatedly again... Twin engine is an advantage that cant be denied however one may try to twist it. Many cheetal/chetak have crashed but cost of operation and acquisition took priority over more safety.

Everyone knows that senior officials are advised to travel in twin engine helis infact we have laid down rule that no two high ranking officials are supposed to travel in single engine chopper together.

But then again why it should be applied for lower ranking officials ? That's what you are saying.... In the mountainous terrain IA will be operating twin engine is always welcomed.

Oh you need 200 helos for VIP transport? Are we transporting whole of Lok Sabha?

And forgetting twin-engine ALH which is capable of transporting personnel & load even to Siachen?

And which has repeatedly proven to be much more crashworthy and in terms of crew survivability than any Russian helo?

Note that I'm not denying twin-engine is inherently better in terms of reliability thanks to sheer redundancy, just like I can't deny that Mi-26 carry way more payload than Chinook, but I'm asking that if its so important for said use-case, then why wasn't it required in RFI ???

You can make the cost case in 50s or 60s India, no longer today. Especially when we are ending up buying the twin-engine option anyway ??

 

[mist_consecutive]

It makes no sense to buy Ka-226 and cultivate another dependency on Russia. We are heavily dependent on Russia for any modification, major repair, and spare parts and Russia takes our kidney for those services.

With our geopolitical stance veering towards NATO/America and China slowly taking over the Russian economy, sooner or later we will find ourselves on the other side of Russian friendship.

Also if we buy 2 both platforms, again it will make no sense to increase our logistics complexity. ALH & LUH are bound to share many different components and parts, as well as overhauling centers which will boost our independence rather than relying on Russia for repairs and MLUs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-aerodynamic phat boi Dimitry

vs.

Sleek sexy indigenous girl Tanya

 

[Flying Dagger]

Oh you need 200 helos for VIP transport? Are we transporting whole of Lok Sabha?

And forgetting twin-engine ALH which is capable of transporting personnel & load even to Siachen?

And which has repeatedly proven to be much more crashworthy and in terms of crew survivability than any Russian helo?

Note that I'm not denying twin-engine is inherently better in terms of reliability thanks to sheer redundancy, just like I can't deny that Mi-26 carry way more payload than Chinook, but I'm asking that if its so important for said use-case, then why wasn't it required in RFI ???

You can make the cost case in 50s or 60s India, no longer today. Especially when we are ending up buying the twin-engine option anyway ??

Who told you 200 helos for VIP transport.... ? You need to fact check your source.

How much load ALH Dhruva is able to carry at Siachen ? Do make a comparison with LUH and Ka 226 T and the acquisition and operational cost.

1 pilot killed, another seriously injured as Army helicopter crash lands in J-K

The Dhruv helicopter crashed in Lakhanpur at around 7.15 pm on Monday.

www.google.com

Also provide details how many times Dhruva has crashed and how many times the entire fleet have been grounded... Since induction.

And twin engine doesn't mean costly.... And a twin engine ka 226 T isn't in ALH weight class either. Now you are just saying things to make feel good. I can't argue with that.

 

[Flying Dagger]

It makes no sense to buy Ka-226 and cultivate another dependency on Russia. We are heavily dependent on Russia for any modification, major repair, and spare parts and Russia takes our kidney for those services.

With our geopolitical stance veering towards NATO/America and China slowly taking over the Russian economy, sooner or later we will find ourselves on the other side of Russian friendship.

Also if we buy 2 both platforms, again it will make no sense to increase our logistics complexity. ALH & LUH are bound to share many different components and parts, as well as overhauling centers which will boost our independence rather than relying on Russia for repairs and MLUs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-aerodynamic phat boi Dimitry

vs.

Sleek sexy indigenous girl Tanya

Phat boi.... Non aerodynamic ?

are you sure abt that ?

It's not fat but it's length is shorter as it doesn't need tail rotor due to coaxial rotor which will provide better handling too in mountainous region.

The back cabin is detachable and can be used for multiple purpose providing cargo to medical ambulance services.


Apart from that... If HAL can offer a light twin engine variant suitable for Navy requirement and meeting Army go for it... But we are going to be dependent on russia for long though ka 226 t maintenance won't be a major thing.

 

[Gessler]

Who told you 200 helos for VIP transport.... ? You need to fact check your source.

Arey I'm asking how many VIP helos do you need because you were proposing VIP transport as a possible role for twin engine helo. I'm asking why you need Ka226 for VIP role when you already have proven twin engine helo for that role?

The problem is that you are not addressing the core LUH requirement as drafted by Armed Forces (which DOES NOT REQUIRE twin-engine design, and where Ka226, Fennec & even HAL LUH all meet the Payload capacity requirement. Go look at the RFI.)

You are talking about what else it can do BESIDES meeting the requirement, that is irrelevant. Going above & beyond in a certain parameter does not give you extra points in Indian procurement system.

Otherwise we would have bought Mi-26 instead of CH-47F.

1 pilot killed, another seriously injured as Army helicopter crash lands in J-K

The Dhruv helicopter crashed in Lakhanpur at around 7.15 pm on Monday.

www.google.com

Also provide details how many times Dhruva has crashed and how many times the entire fleet have been grounded... Since induction.

Should I also provide list of Kamov crashes? (Of older types on which 226 is based on because 226 itself is not used in large numbers anywhere).

Are we seriously talking about this in a country where even Prime Minister is forced to fly in a crappy Mi-17 which does not even have redundant hydraulics or Missile Warning Sensors??

And twin engine doesn't mean costly.... And a twin engine ka 226 T isn't in ALH weight class either. Now you are just saying things to make feel good. I can't argue with that.

It's a pointless discussion.

There is NOTHING in official RFI which mandates twin engine requirement so the basic point of why you need 2 types of helos is moot right there.

The Ka-226 deal, just like 99% of Russian deals, is political in nature. End of story.

 

[Aditya Ballal]

I would substitute the word obsession with compulsion.



ALH rotors do fold (but not under power, have to be done manually, I think I read something about this being mitigated, not sure don't quote me on that), even the tail-folding is currently being demonstrated to IN.

View attachment 112678
View attachment 112679

Any arguments against selecting a modified Dhruv as the NUH platform stands on very thin ice.



There's an AEW version of Ka226? That's news to me - you sure you're not confusing Ka31 with Ka226?

Because -226 is too small to have any significant number of Operator Work Stations (OWS) which allow dissemination of data gathered by the radar.

That said, we have enough Ka31s as it is. We're buying more for the 2nd carrier IIRC.

Automatic Blade Folding in Medium and light helicopters is not a standard feature, it is a standard and expected feature on heavy helicopters since their blades go outside the landing deck/pad of the ships, hence is unsafe for manual folding.

“Automatic blade folding system is a complicated electro-hydraulic mechanism with concomitant weight penalty. It is arguably difficult to build this into the small, hingeless rotor system of the ALH. Auto-folding becomes “essential” in larger naval helicopters such as the Seaking Mk-42B, Merlin HM Mk-2, or CH-148 Cyclone. Their large, heavy blades cannot be ‘manhandled’ without serious risk of damage to man or machine (rotor diameter often extends beyond ship’s deck edge). Short, squat helicopter designs such as the Kamov-28 have fully articulated, small diameter, 3-bladed, coaxial rotors with a simple, manual blade folding system. Conventional helicopters in the 5-5.5T category do not accomodate fully-automatic blade folding; neither was it ever called-for in the naval ALH. Such a requirement does not exist for the 5-ton Naval Utility Helicopter (NUH) either”. - Commander KP Sanjeev Kumar(R).

https://kaypius.com/2020/06/09/naval-alh-blade-folding-clarifying-the-automatic-vs-manual-debate/

 

[Flying Dagger]

Arey I'm asking how many VIP helos do you need because you were proposing VIP transport as a possible role for twin engine helo. I'm asking why you need Ka226 for VIP role when you already have proven twin engine helo for that role?

The problem is that you are not addressing the core LUH requirement as drafted by Armed Forces (which DOES NOT REQUIRE twin-engine design, and where Ka226, Fennec & even HAL LUH all meet the Payload capacity requirement. Go look at the RFI.)

You are talking about what else it can do BESIDES meeting the requirement, that is irrelevant. Going above & beyond in a certain parameter does not give you extra points in Indian procurement system.

Otherwise we would have bought Mi-26 instead of CH-47F.



Should I also provide list of Kamov crashes? (Of older types on which 226 is based on because 226 itself is not used in large numbers anywhere).

Are we seriously talking about this in a country where even Prime Minister is forced to fly in a crappy Mi-17 which does not even have redundant hydraulics or Missile Warning Sensors??



It's a pointless discussion.

There is NOTHING in official RFI which mandates twin engine requirement so the basic point of why you need 2 types of helos is moot right there.

The Ka-226 deal, just like 99% of Russian deals, is political in nature. End of story.

Where did I proposed VIP transport as major role for Ka 226 T . Now you are making it up.


Read the full statement mine and yours and what was said and why it was said.

You brought the crash record trying to paint holy picture of Dhruva which there is none.

Infact I can give several examples where navy and airforce were left stunned by the response of HAL and co. When to deal with recurring fault and quality control issues of their product.


And yes you can give Ka 26 e.g. but that chopper and Ka 226 T are different bird essentially. And when you give those e.g. do let us know how many of those Ka 26 were produce in comparison to Dhruva. And not to forget Ka 26 actually have good record to back itself up as a light utility chopper.

Chinook and Mi 26 are in diff weigh class completely.. and that chopper have great resume in India to back itself up. From Kargil ,to building roads , various disaster management activities it always took central role. But we wanted someone in between to save on fuel and operational cost with better avionics system.


There is no need to mention twin engine as an absolute necessity specially when it is basically g2g deal. But that doesn't count out the obvious advantage of ka 226.

As i said before we were going to buy one different platform other than LUH no matter what if it's Ka 226 T so be it...

 

[Gessler]

As i said before we were going to buy one different platform other than LUH no matter what if it's Ka 226 T so be it...

So if the twin-engine thing is not even that important then what's the point in buying 2 types doing same role

Should we also buy...

Rafale AND Typhoon
Su-30 AND F-15
Tejas Mk2 AND Gripen E
Mi-28 AND Apache

...and so on?

You must be joking, or thinking we are Qatar, or think money grows on trees.

the "all eggs in one basket" argument is weak...it could have some remote sense if we're forced to buy from a country that's liable to put us under sanctions, so backing it up with maintaining numbers of a different type that can keep up the sortie rate in high-tempo ops as it becomes difficult to maintain said foreign helo with spares supply cut off (when under sanctions for extended period).

But the only foreign component on LUH that's difficult to indigenize anytime soon is the engine - but its from France which never put us under sanctions, not even after nuclear tests. In any case, the Ka226 we're buying is equipped with engines from same French company! In the event France sanctions us, BOTH will be equally effected!

So in this case, what exactly are we protecting ourselves from by not putting eggs in same basket??

Unless you're planning on shutting down HAL

 

[Covfefe]

Query for @Heli or Aircraft enthusiasts

What does weight category signify in aircrafts - fixed wing or rotary? Terms like "light combat aircraft" "medium weight fighter aircraft" "light utility helicopter" are often heard in Indian context only. What if ALH is heavy? How does it limit/ impair the operations for IA if it can meet the operational requirements of payload, ferry range, operational ceiling, cost, maintenance and reliability? For IN, where the space or weight might be a consideration, it makes sense but why the same constraint for AF or IA?

 

[abingdonboy]

There is no need to mention twin engine as an absolute necessity

A necessity? Prove it.


Show the IAF/IA SQR that states they need/want a 2 engine LUH/RSH


HAL designed LUH to perfectly meet the IA/IAF LUH SQRs, if there was a 2 engine requirement LUH would be 2 engined.

IA/IAF have NEVER selected the KA-226, for RSH they selected the FENNEC twice over KA-226

This is a blatant payoff to Russia, don't just make things up.

 

[Flying Dagger]

A necessity? Prove it.


Show the IAF/IA SQR that states they need/want a 2 engine LUH/RSH


HAL designed LUH to perfectly meet the IA/IAF LUH SQRs, if there was a 2 engine requirement LUH would be 2 engined.

IA/IAF have NEVER selected the KA-226, for RSH they selected the FENNEC twice over KA-226

This is a blatant payoff to Russia, don't just make things up.

You can keep that out of space non sense outburst to yourself. If you don't understand elementary English not my problem either...

So if the twin-engine thing is not even that important then what's the point in buying 2 types doing same role

Should we also buy...

Rafale AND Typhoon
Su-30 AND F-15
Tejas Mk2 AND Gripen E
Mi-28 AND Apache

...and so on?

You must be joking, or thinking we are Qatar, or think money grows on trees.

the "all eggs in one basket" argument is weak...it could have some remote sense if we're forced to buy from a country that's liable to put us under sanctions, so backing it up with maintaining numbers of a different type that can keep up the sortie rate in high-tempo ops as it becomes difficult to maintain said foreign helo with spares supply cut off (when under sanctions for extended period).

But the only foreign component on LUH that's difficult to indigenize anytime soon is the engine - but its from France which never put us under sanctions, not even after nuclear tests. In any case, the Ka226 we're buying is equipped with engines from same French company! In the event France sanctions us, BOTH will be equally effected!

So in this case, what exactly are we protecting ourselves from by not putting eggs in same basket??

Unless you're planning on shutting down HAL

What do you eat to write such nonsense..

1. We are buying Rafale old Mirage old Mig 29s Su 30 to Tejas etc etc.

Funny why not just Tejas and not Rafale... Why we are still getting more russian Sukhoi old Mirage or Mig 29s

Unless you are planning to shutdown HAL ?

Lol was that something you really thought made your argument look good

2. 200 is not a small number for LUH .

Navy had outright bad experience with HAL Dhruva.

Another 200 ka 226 T + aren't going to complicate anything. And engine won't be a big issue either in this case and Russia can provide alternative even if your wet dream of getting Indian sanction comes true.

In case there are some technical issue with LUH you want Army to ground all its fleet at once... And make all operation go haywire...

I dont want that so another type which can do the job better I'll always welcome.

Add to that HAL will be only benefitting by getting it's hands on coaxial rotor tech and hopefully we will get a derivative in heavy attack class being from it.

 

[abingdonboy]

1. We are buying Rafale old Mirage old Mig 29s Su 30 to Tejas etc etc.

Funny why not just Tejas and not Rafale... Why we are still getting more russian Sukhoi old Mirage or Mig 29s

Unless you are planning to shutdown HAL ?

Sins of the past, doesn't mean this is right.

Look up what fleet harmonisation is. The largest airforces in the world have fewer types than the IAF but you are actually advocating to an even more diverse zoo.

2. 200 is not a small number for LUH .

It's only half (maybe even a third) of the requirements, it doesn't matter how many it is outright, every single additional unit is valuable to HAL so they can scale up production, recoup their investments and ultimately improve the product and build on for the future. Why should Indian MIC be deprived of capital and know how just to boost up Russia?

Navy had outright bad experience with HAL Dhruva.

They had bad experiences about 20 years ago with the N-ALH MK.1 LSPs, how is that relevant to today? It isn't.

In case there are some technical issue with LUH you want Army to ground all its fleet at once... And make all operation go haywire...

What logic is this? What other nation adopts such a policy based on such imaginary fears? Remind me what the US Army ordered alongside the UH-60? Oh wait they ordered the UH-60 by the 1000s for their medium help requirements.

There's a reason you do testing and validation trails before induction- to ensure there's nothing fundamentally flawed that will cause such fleet wide issues. No issue with the LUH will lead to the entire fleet being grounded for a prolonged period, this is just another straw man argument used to justify a needless import.

 

[Tuco]

Unfortunately no. It's political.

They're dragging their feet but they have to pay the devil his due sometime.



No, we still want Ka 226T.

There fixed it for you.




'needs'

Really? Yet they are perfectly content with operating single-engine Cheetah & Chetak for several decades without any issue?

Yet they seem to had no problem letting single-engine Eurocopter Fennec compete alongside for the 197 helo tender? (if RFI stipulated twin engine, it would not have been allowed).

Seem to have no problem actually selecting single-engine Fennec as L1 (lowest bidder) in an earlier tender for 197 helos, eligible to get contract?

..:: India Strategic ::.. Army News: Eurocopter Fennec wins the Big Race for 197 Helicopters

Indiastrategic, India strategic, India.strategic

www.indiastrategic.in

The Pakis that operate at similar altitudes over G-B seem to have no problem buying single-engine Fennec?

This so-called twin engine requirement was pulled out of someone's a$$ to justify why we need 2 different types of helos performing the same roles - which was NEVER the case in IAF or AAC.

Every bit of extra weight a helo carries is DETRIMENTAL for the overall performance at these altitudes. Only reason you'd want twin powerplant is if you're running unreliable types and it becomes a safety issue. Not the case with Western (especially French) engines (like I said, Lama & Alouette were kings of these altitudes, IAF will agree).

And we actually wanted to put the same French engines in Ka226 (that's what the T version is)!

T = Turbomeca (now SAFRAN), the company that has most experience in building engines fit for high altitudes. We aren't fools to have selected their designs to power all our high-altitude requirement helos (Dhruv, LCH, LUH).

Now that drones are being touted for high altitude mule tasks, I think they will test this thoroughly with new acquisitions. The requirements for luh will reduce, I am talking about the light class. I hope that reduction if happens will happen in ka226 numbers.

 

[WolfPack86]

Indian army need to replace chetaak helicopter

 

[Flying Dagger]

Sins of the past, doesn't mean this is right.

Look up what fleet harmonisation is. The largest airforces in the world have fewer types than the IAF but you are actually advocating to an even more diverse zoo.

It's only half (maybe even a third) of the requirements, it doesn't matter how many it is outright, every single additional unit is valuable to HAL so they can scale up production, recoup their investments and ultimately improve the product and build on for the future. Why should Indian MIC be deprived of capital and know how just to boost up Russia?


They had bad experiences about 20 years ago with the N-ALH MK.1 LSPs, how is that relevant to today? It isn't.


What logic is this? What other nation adopts such a policy based on such imaginary fears? Remind me what the US Army ordered alongside the UH-60? Oh wait they ordered the UH-60 by the 1000s for their medium help requirements.

There's a reason you do testing and validation trails before induction- to ensure there's nothing fundamentally flawed that will cause such fleet wide issues. No issue with the LUH will lead to the entire fleet being grounded for a prolonged period, this is just another straw man argument used to justify a needless import.

You are officially unable to interpret anything...

Even USA at any point of time have 4 types + fighter jet apart from many sqd of migs F-5 etc for training. Indian issue is having multiple outdated platforms.. while competent one in small no.s


The key is production cost must justify and enough no. To keep spare parts supply commercially viable. Ka 226 T and LUH with 200 each will provide that if they increase LUH no. Based on performance Good for them.

Even china is license producing Dauphin / Panther etc of France.

What kind of logic they had ?

Ka 226 T will be produced/assembled by HAL in any case and will learn crucial coaxial rotor knowhow. Not to forget better handling in mountain winds.

The heli is better, price sits right there at spot.

And america use many chopper types to do the job and let's not compare their quality standard with ours. I don't wish to say things loud and out but then I meet people like you...

Tell me.who was responsible for crash of 2 mirage 2k and what went wrong ?

Same with Dhruva having multiple issues even now.

Unlike army navy doesn't have much space for errors in the sea they will definitely opt for something they can rely on. IN is one branch which prefers indigenous projects right away.

As for you... Don't quote me again for pointless opinion let's agree to disagree since we know what will happen I am happy in any case.

 

[Gessler]

You can keep that out of space non sense outburst to yourself. If you don't understand elementary English not my problem either...

Elementary english? Are you understanding elementary anything?

What do you eat to write such nonsense..

1. We are buying Rafale old Mirage old Mig 29s Su 30 to Tejas etc etc.

Funny why not just Tejas and not Rafale... Why we are still getting more russian Sukhoi old Mirage or Mig 29s

If you fail to see how these acquisitions hurt IAF (mostly made in IG's years), its a waste of time to talk with you.

I already gave the perfect examples: What you are proposing with buying 2 types of helo to perform the same role is akin to buying both Rafale & Typhoon.

Unless you are planning to shutdown HAL ?

Lol was that something you really thought made your argument look good

You didn't get the joke?

Navy had outright bad experience with HAL Dhruva.

In the beginning, but such problems were long rectified and IN even placed repeat orders for new batches, and are now expanding the capability set & roles performed by the type to include maritime surface surveillance with new variants like Mk-3MR.

Another 200 ka 226 T + aren't going to complicate anything. And engine won't be a big issue either in this case and Russia can provide alternative even if your wet dream of getting Indian sanction comes true.

Oh really? So if that's the case then why aren't we buying it with Russian engine from start? Why wait until after sanctions hit to get Russian engine? You know how much time it takes to re-engine a fleet of 200 helos?

And if at all re-engining with Russian type is on cards, why can't the same re-engine process be done for LUH instead? Why do we have to operate a separate type for that?

You are getting ridiculous, stop trying to defend the indefensible & talking besides the point.

The Ka226 deal is being done for political reasons, nothing more nothing less.

In case there are some technical issue with LUH you want Army to ground all its fleet at once... And make all operation go haywire...

Are you for real?

Recently the USAF grounded the Lockheed F-35 fleet, so you're suggesting they should have bought both the Lockheed & Boeing designs for F-35 as an insurance ?

I thought you were a half-decent person to debate with, turns out one of the stupidest conversations I've had on this forum.

Do you understand how common groundings are in aviation industry? Even for long-running legacy platforms like F-16?

Taiwan grounds entire fleet of US-made F-16 fighter jets after crash | CNN

Taiwan has grounded its entire fleet of about 140 US-made F-16 fighter jets after one of the planes crashed during a training mission on Tuesday evening.

edition.cnn.com

Add to that HAL will be only benefitting by getting it's hands on coaxial rotor tech and hopefully we will get a derivative in heavy attack class being from it.

LOL

Okay so we supposedly got tech of high thrust-class TVC engines when we started license-building AL-31FP, so why haven't we managed to make our own yet?

Just what do you think license-production TOT entails? There's a difference between know-how and know-why. We aren't acquiring any IPRs from Kamov that allow us to build our own co-axial helos.

And if you're going to say why should we ask, we will just reverse-engineer the tech after we get it...why can't we do the same by studying all the co-axial helos we already have like Ka-31, Ka-28 etc. ?

Stop talking besides the point.

Next you will say we should acquire multiple types to confuse the enemy as to who's attacking them

 

[Flying Dagger]

Elementary english? Are you understanding elementary anything?



If you fail to see how these acquisitions hurt IAF (mostly made in IG's years), its a waste of time to talk with you.

I already gave the perfect examples: What you are proposing with buying 2 types of helo to perform the same role is akin to buying both Rafale & Typhoon.



You didn't get the joke?



In the beginning, but such problems were long rectified and IN even placed repeat orders for new batches, and are now expanding the capability set & roles performed by the type to include maritime surface surveillance with new variants like Mk-3MR.

View attachment 112910



Oh really? So if that's the case then why aren't we buying it with Russian engine from start? Why wait until after sanctions hit to get Russian engine? You know how much time it takes to re-engine a fleet of 200 helos?

And if at all re-engining with Russian type is on cards, why can't the same re-engine process be done for LUH instead? Why do we have to operate a separate type for that?

You are getting ridiculous, stop trying to defend the indefensible & talking besides the point.

The Ka226 deal is being done for political reasons, nothing more nothing less.



Are you for real?

Recently the USAF grounded the Lockheed F-35 fleet, so you're suggesting they should have bought both the Lockheed & Boeing designs for F-35 as an insurance ?

I thought you were a half-decent person to debate with, turns out one of the stupidest conversations I've had on this forum.

Do you understand how common groundings are in aviation industry? Even for long-running legacy platforms like F-16?

Taiwan grounds entire fleet of US-made F-16 fighter jets after crash | CNN

Taiwan has grounded its entire fleet of about 140 US-made F-16 fighter jets after one of the planes crashed during a training mission on Tuesday evening.

edition.cnn.com

LOL

Okay so we supposedly got tech of high thrust-class TVC engines when we started license-building AL-31FP, so why haven't we managed to make our own yet?

Just what do you think license-production TOT entails? There's a difference between know-how and know-why. We aren't acquiring any IPRs from Kamov that allow us to build our own co-axial helos.

And if you're going to say why should we ask, we will just reverse-engineer the tech after we get it...why can't we do the same by studying all the co-axial helos we already have like Ka-31, Ka-28 etc. ?

Stop talking besides the point.

Next you will say we should acquire multiple types to confuse the enemy as to who's attacking them

Al 31 are TVC engine ?

Rafale and typhoon e.g. doesn't work since LUH isn't more advanced nor better than Ka 226 T . Infact it is Ka 226 T which holds the advantage.

In anycase just gibberish non sense it is...

Why would we need to replace all 200*2 engine ?? And if it comes to that all HAL choppers are flying with French engines as of now.

We will only need spare parts etc to maintain them unless they are required to be replaced completely. In that case we can use russian engine..

but we aren't using them since we already have a long ongoing production line with French counterparts here and their engines are apparently more efficient and reliable in general.

In short you haven't raised a single worthy argument that make any sense but can definitely continue to write biblical nonsense .

 

[Gessler]

Al 31 are TVC engine ?

Rafale and typhoon e.g. doesn't work since LUH isn't more advanced nor better than Ka 226 T . Infact it is Ka 226 T which holds the advantage.

Then buy all 384 Ka226

In anycase just gibberish non sense it is...

Why would we need to replace all 200*2 engine ?? And if it comes to that all HAL choppers are flying with French engines as of now.

We will only need spare parts etc to maintain them unless they are required to be replaced completely. In that case we can use russian engine..

but we aren't using them since we already have a long ongoing production line with French counterparts here and their engines are apparently more efficient and reliable in general.

In short you haven't raised a single worthy argument that make any sense but can definitely continue to write biblical nonsense .

Talking about buying 2 platforms for same role and asking me to raise worthy argument. Huh.